The repeated message from statements by politicians in Iran, driven by hardline currents supporting the Revolutionary Guard and rejecting any attempt to negotiate with the West, is that Iran will not accept a ceasefire that does not guarantee the war will not happen again, in order to avoid what occurred in June 2025.

Therefore, since the conservative current dominates public opinion today in the name of sacrifice and the nation, any advice or opposition to this policy from the reformist current is suppressed and labeled as betrayal under the pretext of preserving national unity. This was evident with figures such as former reformist President Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who succeeded diplomatically in reaching an agreement with the West in 2015.

It seems that reformists fear that the hardline conservative current will pursue nothing other than proving the correctness of its anti-Western vision in order to control public opinion, which threatens the future of the Iranian state. This is especially concerning given that the current situation in Iran goes beyond the revolutionary phase against the Shah, as his supporters left the country and now there are two faces of Iranians, inside and outside the country.

The exclusion of reformists from political life and the silencing of their opinions at their inception, particularly under the rule of the Vilayat-e-Faqih, with the departure of Khamenei and the dominance of the military side of the state that brought in the Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei under pressure from the Revolutionary Guard, means that division within Iran will deepen.

This may not necessarily strengthen efforts to overthrow the regime, but it will reinforce the sense of stagnation in which the Islamic Republic finds itself. The continued repetition by hardliners that the war must continue until Iran’s conditions are met, otherwise the specter of war will remain, indicates that the Iranian regime still adheres to a strategy of failure and, for example, will not be able to regain the trust of Gulf countries with this mindset.

Iran will face a dangerous phase after this war ends, if its regime manages to survive. The isolation it will experience following the disasters it created, particularly within its Gulf neighborhood, could become deadly, similar to post-war regimes elsewhere. The only solution would be for the reformists to take the lead in establishing a new strategy for foreign relations. The Gulf countries have lost their sense of security in the presence of this regime, and Tehran would need to make a significant effort to regain the trust of its Arab neighbors if it seeks to emerge from isolation.

The reformists’ calls during the war crisis, such as former President Rouhani’s appeal for immediate and fundamental policy reforms, can be understood as representing a large segment of Iran’s moderate currents, which also practice strategic patience, hoping for change through figures like Khatami, Rouhani, Zarif, Abbas Akhundi, Tajzadeh, and Jahangiri. Otherwise, Iran will remain trapped in a post-war quagmire, left only with the continuation of a cycle of insecurity that could destroy the future of its regime if it fails to meet the aspirations of its people.

Although reformist Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif boasted in an article in Foreign Affairs about the quagmire the Americans entered in their war with Iran, which angered Arab politicians and officials, it would have been more appropriate for him to call on his own regime first to abandon its policies instead of this boast. Their criticism, focusing on the initial strategic mistakes of Iran, is justified. Yet, the truth is that Zarif’s article is a muted cry and an implicit admission that continuing this war will gain Iran nothing, contrary to hardliners’ illusions, except more empty pride in humiliating the Americans without the ability to move into a post-war phase and overcome its bitterness. Achieving that requires first reforming Iran’s political strategy.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.